Asylum Detainees: Clothing

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements they have made to ensure that asylum seekers detained in prisons or detention centres have a change of clothes.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Asylum seekers detained in prison establishments can wear their own clothes, arrange to have clothes brought to them or be issued with prison clothes. National prison standards require that the clothing worn by immigration detainees held in prison, whether their own or prison issue, are suitable, tidy and clean and are adequate for warmth and health. Guidance on the frequency of clothing changes is given in the operating standards manual.
	In detention centres, Rule 12 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (SI 2001/238) provides that all detainees may wear clothing of their own if it is suitable and clean and shall be provided with clothing adequate for warmth and health. Detainees can also be provided with suitable and adequate clothing on their release. Facilities are also provided for the laundering of items of clothing. These standards are restated in operating companies' contracts which require that, if any detainee is unable to wear or provide their own clothing, they will be provided with a reasonable choice of clothing which is clean, in good repair and well fitting. The clothing provided should observe cultural and religious requirements.

Prisoners: Mandatory Drug Testing

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any difficulties have been experienced in prisons with mandatory drug testing of prisoners who are prescribed pankillers; and if so, which painkilling drugs are not prescribed for this reason.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No difficulties have been reported. The mandatory drug testing process is able to differentiate between commonly prescribed painkillers and illicit drugs such as heroin, provided the prisoner declares all prescribed medication.

Prisoners: Discharge Grants

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in the review by the Prison Service and other departments of the level and method of payment of discharge grants to prisoners.[HL1807].

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Social Exclusion Unit has included discharge grants in a review of financial support available to ex-prisoners as part of its report on reducing re-offending by this group. That report is due to be delivered to the Prime Minister in July 2001. In advance of that report being received, a review by the Prison Service of discharge grants has been put on hold.

Prisoners: Discharge Grants

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) what is now the size of a prison discharge grant; and (b) what the figure would be if it had been updated in line with prices since 1995.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The information the noble Earl requests is given in the table based on an increase in line with inflation.
	
		Rates of discharge grant
		
			 Rates Current value 2001-02 value if increased in line with inflation(1) 
			 Standard 
			 25 and older £46.75 £54.46 
			 18-24 £37.00 £43.10 
			 Higher £94.40 £109.96 
		
	
	(1) Rate if discharge grants had increased in line with inflation since 1995 using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflators dated 24 March 2001.

Freedom of Information Act and Government Departments

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 9 April (WA 138), what is the earliest date they intend to bring the Freedom of Information Act 2000 into force for central government departments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said to the noble Lord in my reply on 2 April 2001 (WA 87), the Home Office is currently in consultation with the Information Commissioner concerning the timetable for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Implementation will require a great deal of work on the part of the Office of the Information Commissioner, not least with regard to the approval of publication schemes for all public authorities. It would be inappropriate to make any definitive statement on the timing of implementation until these discussions are completed.
	However, I would like to assure the noble Lord that the Government, as part of their commitment to open government, are determined to implement the Freedom of Information Act, both for Her Majesty's Civil Service and for the rest of the public sector, as expeditiously as possible.

Prison Service: Boards of Visitors Appointments

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the events at HM Prison Holloway, HM Prison Haslar and HM Prison Standford Hill concerning the triennial reviews of the board of visitors appointments at these prisons have any common elements; and, if so, what lessons are to be drawn from them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The circumstances surrounding the decisions by the Minister for Prisons and Probation and his predecessor not to re-appoint certain members of the boards of visitors at Holloway and Standford Hill prisons and Haslar holding centre were different and each was considered on its merits. Nevertheless, an independent review of the events at Holloway prison did conclude that lessons should be drawn from them and as a result changes were made to the triennial review process. More recently, the Prisons Ombudsman, who was asked to review events at Standford Hill prison, has made further recommendations for change to the triennial review process, as has Sir Peter Lloyd's Working Group on the Review of the Boards of Visitors. Their recommendations, which include the proposal that members who are not being re-appointed should be advised of the reasons and given the opportunity to appeal against the decision, will be given very careful consideration.

War Crimes Inquiries

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What expenditure has been incurred in each year so far under the War Crimes Act 1991 in pursuing alleged war criminals; and what police manpower is currently engaged on the inquiries.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit was established in 1991 to carry out investigations under the War Crimes Act 1991 in England and Wales. It was disbanded in 1999 because all allegations at that time had been investigated. However, three police officers at the Metropolitan Police continue to work on war crimes inquiries as they arise.
	The investigation of crime in Scotland is a matter within the competency of the Scottish Parliament and it would therefore not be appropriate to comment further on this question in relation to Scotland.
	Expenditure incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police in pursuing alleged war criminals is shown in the table below. Police expenditure since 1999 has been met from normal budgets and no figures are centrally available since that time.
	
		
			  Police CPS 
			 1991-92 £850,600 £6,662 
			 1992-93 £1,260,000 £384,190 
			 1993-94 £1,485,000 £416,341 
			 1994-95 (*)£500,000 £433,765 
			 1995-96 £877,192 £552,194 
			 1996-97 £648,922 £748,516 
			 1997-98 £560,983 £213,920 
			 1998-99 £255,600 £576,847 
			 1999-2000 -- £173,983 
			 2001-01 -- £3,163 
		
	
	(*) Estimate.

Immigration Controls

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What authorisations they have approved in respect of categories of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom permitting discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origin; and
	What conditions, including periods of review, they have attached to any authorisation of discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin against categories of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom; and
	Whether they will publish information retrospectively about the use made of authorisations permitting discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin against categories of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom and any information which justifies the making of such authorisations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Home Office Minister of State (Mrs Roche) has announced today in another place that she has made an authorisation, in the light of evidence about the particular risks posed to the effective operation of our immigration controls by some members of certain ethnic or national groups, permitting the Immigration Service to discriminate, where necessary, in the examination of passengers belonging to the following ethnic or national groups: Tamils, Kurds, Pontic Greeks, Roma, Somalis, Albanians, Afghans and ethnic Chinese presenting a Malaysian or Japanese passport or any other travel document issued by Malaysia or Japan.
	The decision on a passenger's entitlement to enter the United Kingdom will continue to be taken on the merits of the case in accordance with the Immigration Rules. The authorisation simply allows the Immigration Service to prioritise and manage its resources effectively in undertaking examinations necessary in order to reach that decision. In the majority of cases, any delay experienced by legitimate passengers in the groups concerned while passing through the control will be very short.
	The authorisation specifies the particular legal powers exercisable by immigration officers to which it relates. My honourable friend the Minister of State (Mrs Roche) will review the authorisation concerning discrimination on the basis of ethnic or national origin in the examination of passengers each month. A copy of the additional authorisation has been placed in the Library. Any future additional or amended authorisations will also be placed in the Library.
	The Race Monitor to be appointed under Section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) will report to Parliament via the Secretary of State on the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and on how they are operated in practice by officials. In addition, the Government are currently considering whether it would be feasible for them to publish information retrospectively about the use made of authorisations covering discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin in the examination of passengers. The Government would be prepared to publish information justifying the making of such authorisations to the extent that publication would not prejudice the effective administration of immigration controls or other statutory provisions.

Neighbourhood Statistics

Lord Skelmersdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the figures for marriage, divorce and domestic violence will be included with the neighbourhood statistics proposed in the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team 18 Report.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from the National Statistician, Len Cook, dated 30th April 2001.
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about when the figures for marriage, divorce and domestic violence will be included with the neighbourhood statistics proposed in the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team 18 Report (HL1157).
	Policy Action Team 18 identified a wide range of information about small areas that would assist the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Small area figures for marriage, divorce and domestic violence were not identified by the Policy Action Team 18 Report. An extensive programme of work has begun to disseminate data that already exists through the National Statistics website and to prioritise areas for future development. Development will take account of user views, cost, feasibility and usefulness.
	Information on marriages and divorces is collected on the basis of the Registration District where the marriage was solemnised and the location of the court respectively rather than by residence. At present statistics on marriages are published by Registration District. These are available on StatBase, the National Statistics database, which can be accessed via the National Statistics website. Statistics on divorces are available from the ONS at national level only. These are also available on StatBase. The Court Service publishes the numbers of petitions filed and the numbers of decrees nisi and absolute granted by Court Circuit, although the information is available by individual court on request from the Court Service.
	Offences of domestic violence recorded by the police are not identifiable separately from other offences of violence and there is therefore no immediate prospect of figures of small geographical areas becoming routinely available.
	The scope to develop statistics will be the subject of further research in the context of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

Census: Costs and Benefits

Lord Lipsey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the estimated cost of the 2001 census, and
	What is their estimate of the accuracy of the head-count provided by the 1991 census; and
	How many prosecutions were launched for failure to complete the 1991 census; and
	What steps were taken to evaluate the costs and benefits of the 2001 census prior to the decision to proceed with it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from the National Statistician, Len Cook, dated 30th April 2001.
	As Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking: what is the estimated cost of the 2001 Census; what is the estimated accuracy of the head-count provided by the 1991 Census; how many prosecutions were launched for failure to complete the 1991 Census and what steps were taken to evaluate the costs and benefits of the 2001 Census prior to the decision to proceed with it (HL1819, HL1822, HL1823 and HL1824).
	The total estimated cost for the 2001 Census in England and Wales over the 13-year period 1993-94 to 2005-06 is £207 million. The Census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	The 1991 Census of Great Britain is estimated to have undercounted the overall total head count of residents by 2.2 per cent.
	In 1991 there were 354 prosecutions for refusal to complete a 1991 Census form in England and Wales.
	Following the 1991 Census the three United Kingdom Census Offices undertook a Census Policy Evaluation and Reappraisal (PEAR) in 1992 to review the future needs for statistical information on population and housing and the options for providing such information. The then Government's decision, announced on 13 October 1992, for planning to proceed on the basis of a Census in 2001, followed the results of the PEAR review which confirmed that:
	(a) there would be a continuing need both in the public and private sectors for the type of statistical information on population and housing provided by the census over the period 1996-2016; and
	(b) there were no alternative sources for providing such information on a nationwide standard basis for local areas.
	In addition to this review, a major survey of census users was carried out in 1994 to obtain user opinion of the efficacy of the 1991 Census and requirements for 2001. Almost 1,000 users throughout the United Kingdom responded to the survey in one way or another, and the continuing need for statistical information on population and housing was once again clearly stated.
	Throughout 1997, the Census Offices conducted a consultation exercise among the census user community to ascertain the business cases for a range of topics that were being considered for inclusion in the 2001 Census. In summary, the criteria for accepting these topics were:
	that there was a clearly demonstrated need;
	that users' requirements could not adequately be met by information from other sources;
	that they should be shown, in tests, to have had no significantly adverse effect on the Census as a whole, particularly the level of public response; and
	that practicable questions could be devised to collect data which is sufficiently accurate to meet users' requirements.
	This information, and the details of the Government's proposals for the 2001 Census and the uses to which the information to be collected would be put, were set out in a White Paper 'The 2001 Census of Population' (Cm 4253) published in March 1999, a copy of which is in the House of Lords Library.

End of Year Summary P14

Lord Dixon-Smith: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the End of Year Summary P14 for employees' income tax and national insurance has space for seven digits for the total of employees' and employers' contributions payable for national insurance, thereby implying that this could be a hundred times greater than the salary earned, for which there is space for only five.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The five-digit box on the End of Year Summary P14 records only the amount of the employee's earnings above the earnings threshold up to and including the upper earnings limit. This is the amount of earnings on which the employee's national insurance contributions are payable.
	Because employers' national insurance contributions are payable on all earnings above the earnings threshold, it is possible for the total of employee's and employers' contributions payable to consist of seven digits (whole pounds) plus two-digits (pence). Consequently, a larger box is needed on the form for this entry.

Post Office: Compulsory Land Purchase Powers

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How often the Post Office exercised its compulsory land purchase powers in the three years from 1997-98; what is the size of its current land bank; and what proportion of that land bank was acquired more than three years ago.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Post Office has not exercised its compulsory land purchase powers during these three years. The total number of properties, excluding sub-postmaster premises, is currently 2,734. Of these, approximately 96 per cent were acquired more than three years ago.

Unemployment Claimant Count

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people have left the claimant count for unemployment since 1997:
	(a) because they have been exempted from the actively seeking work rules by reason of their age;
	(b) because they have gone onto incapacity benefit;
	(c) because they have been excluded from the claimant count as well as a result of benefit sanctions.

Baroness Blackstone: Information on the destination of leavers is not available for 1997. Total outflows from the claimant count over the three years 1998 to 2000 were 9.4 million, of which, (a) 17,800 males aged 60 to 64 moved onto income support. A further 16,200 claimants left because they had reached state pension age. On (b), of those moving onto other benefits, 438,700 claimants moved onto incapacity benefit, 148,600 moved onto income support and 149,600 onto other benefits.
	The 438,700 who moved onto incapacity benefit comprised just part of the 2.1 million total inflows onto incapacity benefit between 1998 and 2000. While total outflows from incapacity benefits were lower (at 1.7 million), the total numbers in receipt of these benefits fell between 1998 and 2000 due to large flows onto retirement pension that are not counted as outflows.
	On (c), there were 701,400 sanctions imposed in the four years 1997 to 2000 (and 498,800 over the period 1998 to 2000). These sanctions do not necessarily result in people leaving the claimant count. They can remain on the count even if they are not receiving any benefit. As there are advantages in remaining on the count, not everyone will leave when they are sanctioned.

Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burning

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What environmental health, pollution and other legislation controls the burning of dead farm animals; who is responsible for giving permits for such activity; and how such legislation is being applied to the present mass burning of animals.

Baroness Hayman: In England the legislation which governs the burning of animal carcasses in a pyre is to varying degees the Animal By-Products Order 1999, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Clean Air Act 1993 and the Groundwater Regulations 1998. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Codes of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Air and Water are also relevant.
	In general, the burning of animal carcasses is permitted only in restricted circumstances. But where there is a lack of capacity at rendering premises or incinerators, my right honourable friend the Minister may serve a notice under the Animal By-Products Order 1999 requiring the person in charge of the carcasses to dispose of them by burning. Any such disposal must comply with the Groundwater Regulations. Each proposed burning site will be subject to a risk assessment under the regulations and, if the site is considered suitable from a water quality perspective for disposal of ashes, the Environment Agency will issue an authorisation to MAFF.

Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burying

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What environmental health, pollution and other legislation controls the burying of dead farm animals; who is responsible for giving permits for such activity; and how such legislation is being applied to the present mass burying of animals.

Baroness Hayman: In order to protect the environment and human health, the Government's preferred hierarchy of disposal options for waste arising from the foot and mouth crisis starts with rendering; followed by incineration in authorised facilities; then disposal in licensed, engineered landfill; on-farm burial and burning; and finally off-farm mass burial or burning.
	Disposal of carcasses at landfill sites is regulated by the Environment Agency under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Only licensed landfill sites approved by the Environment Agency as being suitable for this purpose are being used and disposal of carcasses is carried out on the basis of a best practice document agreed between the Environment Agency, MAFF and the Environmental Services Association (ESA).
	The burial of animal carcasses in England, other than at licensed landfill sites, is controlled by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Groundwater Regulations 1998.
	In general, the burial of animal carcasses is permitted only in restricted circumstances. But where there is a lack of capacity at rendering premises or incinerators, my right honourable friend the Minister may serve a notice under the Animal By-Products Order 1999 requiring the person in charge of the carcasses to dispose of them by burial. Where the carcasses are buried on farm, the burial must comply with the Groundwater Regulations and may need authorisation from the Environment Agency.
	The Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Environment Agency and local authorities liaise closely to ensure that burial takes place in compliance with the legislation.
	Whether planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is also required will depend on the circumstances of a particular case. It may be needed either to authorise changes to the conditions attached to an existing planning permission for a landfill site or for the excavation and use of land for the burial of dead farm animals. Decisions on whether permission is required, and for the determination of applications once made, are matters for the local planning authority concerned in the first instance.

Animal Carcasses: Health Risks from Residues and Run-off

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which bodies are responsible for monitoring run-off and seepage from the clinker and residues resulting from burning dead farm animals, and from burying such animals, during the current foot and mouth outbreak; what resources are being devoted to such monitoring; and whether they are satisfied there is no resulting health risk.

Baroness Hayman: Clinker and residues (ash) from burning are gathered up and buried either on site or elsewhere with the agreement of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring run-off and seepage from burning and burial sites. Both burning and burial sites are subject to EA risk assessment before permission is given to MAFF for such burning or burial to take place. Authorisation under the Groundwater Regulations will take into account the assessment of risks to controlled waters and to public and private water supplies. The regulations require "requisite surveillance" of groundwater in respect of an authorisation and the Environment Agency may therefore impose monitoring conditions. Such monitoring may be undertaken by the Environment Agency or MAFF. Local authorities advise on the risk of air pollution from burning and the Department of Health/local public health medical officers are also involved.

Transport Council: French Railways

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 10th April (WA 174-176), whether the British Government representatives at the recent Transport Council in Luxembourg, particularly Keith Hill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, discussed with his French colleague:
	(a) how and when French railways will implement measures to meet the requirements of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Regulations extending the civil penalties to rail freight and any effect that lack of such measures is having on this traffic; and
	(b) the continuing strikes on French railways and their effect on international freight traffic.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These issues were not discussed in the margins of the recent Transport Council. We are, however, in close touch with the French authorities about the development of measures to prevent clandestine entry to the United Kingdom, by all modes of transport, including rail, at both the political and operational level.
	We are also in regular touch with freight operators over the implications for their international services of attempts at clandestine immigration and of transport disruptions in continental Europe.

North West: Objective 2 Programme

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the approval of actions, plans and hence specific projects under Objective 2 of the European Social Funds in the north west of England would be expedited in the light of the economic consequences of foot and mouth disease.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord has asked about Objective 2 of the European Social Funds in the north west of England. This particular objective 2 programme is part of the overall European Structural Funds programme but is funded solely by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and receives no grant from the European Social Fund (ESF).
	The Objective 2 programme in the north west was officially launched at the Programme Monitoring/Regional Committee on 30 March 2001. At this meeting a timetable was put into place by which the programme would be expedited. This timetable aims to balance the needs of getting the programme under way as quickly as possible and ensuring that the necessary structures and monitoring systems are put in place correctly.
	At the meeting on 30 March, the PM/RC delegated authority to the European Programme Secretariat to enable it to deal with an accelerated application for £1 million ERDF to match North West Development Agency funding for business support measures to assist the rural and tourism sectors. This application was in full compliance with the eligibility rules under the programme and was subsequently submitted by the NWDA and an offer issued by the secretariat.
	Under that project, business support agencies can obtain additional funding for an enhanced service to those sectors in the north west hit particularly hard by the drop in tourism and rural business.

Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who are the members of the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel, and what are their occupations and interests, for the years 1995 and currently.

Lord Whitty: In 1995, the members of the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel were: Dr J Osman, senior employment medical adviser in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Health Directorate (who Chairs the Panel; Dr N Bateman, then consultant physician at the Northern Regional Health Authority's Regional Drug and Therapeutic Centre; Dr V Murray, Occupational and Environmental Toxicologist, and Miss F Northall, Information Scientist, both at the London Centre of the National Poisons Information Service; Dr T Marrs, then senior medical officer in the Department of Health; Mr J Bouckley, HSE inspector; and Dr A Scott, senior employment medical adviser in the Employment Medical Advisory Service.
	Dr Bateman and Dr Murray resigned from the panel in the interval between 1995 and now Dr Murray's resignation means that presently there is a vacancy on the panel. Currently the other independent members are: Dr T Aw, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Medicine at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in the University of Birmingham; Dr S Bradberry, Medical Officer at the West Midlands Centre of the National Poisons Information Service; Dr. R Ferner, consultant physician at the West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting; Miss Northall, jointly with Miss G Cullen, who is also an Information Scientist at the London Centre of the National Poisons Information Service; and Dr A Robertson, occupational hygienist and managing director of consulting at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. The Department of Health is now represented by Mr Jon Battershill, toxicologist; and Mr G. Walker has replaced Mr Bouckley. Dr Osman continues to chair the panel.
	There is no information on the interests of panel members for 1995 other than that the HSE and Department of Health members will have been subject to the normal rules of the Civil Service regarding such matters.
	The profile of the panel's work has increased considerably in the recent past and, as a consequence, the need for statements of interest was considered at the panel's most recent meeting on 4 April 2001. At that meeting it was agreed that it was indeed appropriate for members to declare interests and the Chair was charged with drawing up procedures based on those already used by high level government advisory bodies. The new procedures will be introduced as soon as possible.

Tower Hamlets: New Home Construction

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the total number of new homes constructed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in each of the four years 1993-94 to 1996-97 and in the subsequent four years 1997-98 to 2000-01; and whether they will further record the separate totals in each year of local authority and housing association units completed and those built for private enterprise.

Lord Whitty: The department has had insufficient reports from the borough for these years to provide the data requested.

Heathrow: Fifth Terminal Inquiry

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have given any indication to the British Airports Authority (BAA), or anyone else, that BAA will be given planning permission to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport.

Lord Whitty: No. The public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow opened on 16 May 1995 and closed on 17 March 1999. The inquiry inspector delivered his report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 20 December 2000. No decision on the inspector's report has yet been taken. A decision will be reached as soon as possible, consistent with full and careful consideration of the report.

Peers: Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowance

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What are the new rates of the allowance for peers in respect of journeys by private cars and by bicycle.

Lord Tordoff: The Resolution of the House of 20 July 1994 provided for the rate of motor mileage allowance to be uprated annually on 1 April in line with the increase in the retail prices index over the previous 12 months to March.
	Accordingly, with effect from 1 April 2001, the rate of motor mileage allowance was increased to 53.7 pence for the first 20,000 miles for the period to 31 March 2001. Further mileage in this period is payable at the rate of 24.8 pence per mile.
	The Resolution of the House of 20 May 1998 provided for the rate of the bicycle allowance to be uprated annually on 1 April in line with the increase in the retail prices index over the previous 12 months to March.
	Accordingly, with effect from 1 April 2001, the rate of the bicycle allowance was increased to 6.9 pence per mile.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what issues over the past 12 months the Government of the Irish Republic have made representations to, and sought advice from, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and whether the North-South Ministerial Council was involved.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is a matter for the Irish Government and the North-South Ministerial Council.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What advice the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has offered them concerning the use of the Ulster Scots language by government departments.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: None.

e-government Rankings: Accenture Report

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they respond to the demotion of the United Kingdom from sixth to eighth in Accenture's global e-government rankings.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The UK is widely recognised as one of the world's leading countries in the development of e-government. The Accenture report itself recognises that the UK is investing for the future and says that "this research confirms that the UK is laying a sound foundation for online service delivery".
	Direct snapshot comparisons between countries can be misleading as they do not reflect the strength of the underlying infrastructure or planning. We are well on track to deliver our commitment to make all government services available online by 2005. The ukonline.gov.uk portal and Government Gateway provide us with world-class foundations for doing that.